Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
in whole or in part.
reasoning stated above.
in whole or in part.
in whole or in part.
10 UNIT TWO: AGENCY AND EMPLOYMENT
© 2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website,
in whole or in part.
Most critical was “Titan's inconsistent behavior at the time of the decision and its inability to
explain its behavior . . . . In short order, Titan accepted that Chalfant passed his physical,
notified him that he would be hired, changed the results of his physical to ‘failed’ and notified
him that he would not be hired. . . . [N]o one at Titan could say who made the decision to alter
the outcome of the physical examination from ‘pass’ to ‘fail,’ and no one from Titan ever
explained the impetus for that change. Instead, each person simply denied that he or she had
any involvement at all in the decision not to hire Chalfant. A reasonable jury could infer that this
unusual decision-making process occurred because Titan was aware at the time it decided not
employer continued to seek applicants for the position or filled the position with a person not in a
protected class. If the plaintiff can meet these relatively easy requirements, he or she has made
out a prima facie case of illegal discrimination. This means that the plaintiff has met the initial
burden of proof and will win in the absence of a legally acceptable employer defense. In this
problem, a prima facie case could likely be established if people of color who auditioned for lead
local labor market. The plaintiff must show that (1) as a result of educational or other job
requirements or hiring procedures, (2) the percentage of nonwhites, women, or members of
other protected classes in the employer’s workforce (3) does not reflect the percentage of that
group in the pool of qualified applicants. A plaintiff can also prove disparate-impact
discrimination by comparing the selection rates of whites and nonwhites (or members of another
(c) Despite the assumption in the facts that the plaintiffs can establish a prima facie
case, the employer’s best defenses most likely relate to the elements of such a case. For
example, if few persons of color applied for the lead roles, the disposition of their applications
would have little statistical significance in a disparate-impact discrimination case. And those who
did apply may not have met the shows’ criteria for the lead roles, undercutting a claim of
in whole or in part.
in whole or in part.
in whole or in part.
10 UNIT TWO: AGENCY AND EMPLOYMENT
© 2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website,
in whole or in part.
Most critical was “Titan's inconsistent behavior at the time of the decision and its inability to
explain its behavior . . . . In short order, Titan accepted that Chalfant passed his physical,
notified him that he would be hired, changed the results of his physical to ‘failed’ and notified
him that he would not be hired. . . . [N]o one at Titan could say who made the decision to alter
the outcome of the physical examination from ‘pass’ to ‘fail,’ and no one from Titan ever
explained the impetus for that change. Instead, each person simply denied that he or she had
any involvement at all in the decision not to hire Chalfant. A reasonable jury could infer that this
unusual decision-making process occurred because Titan was aware at the time it decided not
employer continued to seek applicants for the position or filled the position with a person not in a
protected class. If the plaintiff can meet these relatively easy requirements, he or she has made
out a prima facie case of illegal discrimination. This means that the plaintiff has met the initial
burden of proof and will win in the absence of a legally acceptable employer defense. In this
problem, a prima facie case could likely be established if people of color who auditioned for lead
local labor market. The plaintiff must show that (1) as a result of educational or other job
requirements or hiring procedures, (2) the percentage of nonwhites, women, or members of
other protected classes in the employer’s workforce (3) does not reflect the percentage of that
group in the pool of qualified applicants. A plaintiff can also prove disparate-impact
discrimination by comparing the selection rates of whites and nonwhites (or members of another
(c) Despite the assumption in the facts that the plaintiffs can establish a prima facie
case, the employer’s best defenses most likely relate to the elements of such a case. For
example, if few persons of color applied for the lead roles, the disposition of their applications
would have little statistical significance in a disparate-impact discrimination case. And those who
did apply may not have met the shows’ criteria for the lead roles, undercutting a claim of
in whole or in part.
